Two Dozen Texas Families Just Dropped A Church-State Showdown On The Supreme Court’s Doorstep
Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Baha’i, Unitarian Universalist and nonreligious parents are asking the justices to enforce a 1980 ruling that Texas insists is already a dead letter/
More than two dozen Texas families asked the Supreme Court on Monday to strike down Senate Bill 10, the state law forcing every public school classroom in Texas to hang a state-selected version of the Ten Commandments on the wall. The petition for certiorari argues that a divided federal appeals court effectively overruled Supreme Court precedent that only the Supreme Court can overturn.
The families are represented by the ACLU of Texas, the national ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is handling the case for free. Their children attend schools in 22 districts across Texas, and the families include Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Baha’i, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious backgrounds.
This filing comes as students return to classrooms where the posters are already being put up.
One petition covers two lawsuits
The filing on Monday is a joint request for review in two separate cases: Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District and Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District. Both cases challenge the same law and both were stopped at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in April.
Rabbi Joshua Fixler of Houston, one of the plaintiffs, said the mandate is especially painful for him as both a clergy member and a father. He described the displays as putting students in a position where they have to justify their own families’ beliefs against a government-issued religious statement, and said his concern extends to every child in his congregation.
Nichole Manning, a plaintiff from the Dallas area who is raising her children without religious affiliation, said she chose public school because she wanted an environment without religious endorsement. Rebekah and Ted Lowe, an interfaith couple from Austin raising their children in both Christian and Jewish traditions, see the issue as a question of who has the authority: the family or the Legislature.
Americans United has released short videos featuring both families, where they talk about how they think the displays will affect their households.
How the 5th Circuit addressed a 45-year-old precedent
In 1980, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law in Stone v. Graham that required Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms. The Texas law is almost identical. That decision should have settled the issue.
However, in April, the full 5th Circuit ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate either the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause. This reversed U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, who had blocked 11 districts from following the law. The decision was decided by just one vote.
The court’s reasoning turned on Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the 2022 ruling in which the Supreme Court’s conservative majority sided with a football coach who prayed at midfield and, in the process, discarded the long-standing Lemon test for establishment claims. The 5th Circuit majority concluded that scrapping the Lemon framework knocked the analytical legs out from under Stone, leaving lower courts free to reach the opposite result.
This is the main issue the plaintiffs want the justices to address. Their petition argues that the appeals court broke with binding precedent and left judges across the country unsure about which establishment-clause standard applies. Cecillia Wang, the ACLU’s national legal director, pointed out that the organization won the Kentucky case fifty years ago and plans to win this one too.
Which version of the Ten Commandments?
The law does not just require a general religious display. Texas specifies a particular text from the Protestant King James Bible, printed on a poster at least 16 by 20 inches, and permanently placed in a visible spot in every classroom from kindergarten through 12th grade.
This specific requirement is central to the plaintiffs’ free-exercise argument. Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant traditions number and word the commandments differently. By choosing one version, the state is not recognizing a shared moral heritage; it is selecting a denominational winner and displaying it in every classroom where children must be present.
Chloe Kempf, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas, said the posters expose students to bullying and religious pressure, and that decisions about faith should be made by families and congregations, not politicians. Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation argued that a commandment telling people which deity to worship goes against the First Amendment. Rachel Laser, who leads Americans United, said the increase in state mandates makes a clear ruling from the justices urgent.
School districts do not have to use tax dollars for the posters. The law requires them to accept and display privately donated copies, and church groups and conservative organizations have sent many of these posters to schools in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas.
Texas officials act as if the fight is already over
Attorney General Ken Paxton has been the law’s strongest supporter. After the April ruling, he took credit for defending the law and said students should see the commandments every school day. When Judge Biery first blocked the law, Paxton called the church-state argument a bogus claim and described the challengers as radical anti-American groups.
He has also taken legal action against districts he said were slow to comply, suing Galveston, Round Rock, and Leander while the constitutional question was still in federal courts. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has defended the law as historical documentation, not religious instruction. Gov. Greg Abbott signed S.B. 10 in June 2025, just one day after a federal appeals panel called Louisiana’s similar law clearly unconstitutional.
Another challenge is still in progress in Texas state court, where three mothers from the Houston area argue that the mandate violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A judge refused to issue a restraining order in that case, and a hearing on broader relief is scheduled for this week.
A coordinated campaign across several states
Texas is not acting alone. Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama have all passed laws requiring classroom displays, with Alabama’s law starting in January. At least a dozen other legislatures have considered similar bills, but lawmakers in Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and other states have rejected them.
The litigation has produced a patchwork. U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks permanently blocked Arkansas Act 573, writing that the only conceivable purpose of hanging a sacred text in every classroom is to proselytize to children. In Louisiana, the 5th Circuit vacated an injunction in February by an 11-7 vote, holding that the challenge arrived before judges could evaluate how the displays would actually look and function. The Becket Fund defended Louisiana in that case, arguing that passive religious symbolism belongs in American public life.
In January, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill predicted that the dispute would reach the Supreme Court no matter what the 5th Circuit decided. She was correct.
The Next Steps Are Up To The Judges
As of Monday afternoon, the petition had not yet appeared on the Supreme Court’s docket. The justices are expected to consider it at a closed conference after the new term begins this fall, but they reject most cases that come before them.
However, the Supreme Court has shown interest in this type of issue. Last year, a 6-3 majority sided with Maryland parents who wanted to remove their children from lessons using books with LGBTQ themes. In 2022, the Court supported the praying football coach. Both decisions expanded the space for religious claims in public education, and now states are using them to argue that the 1980 ban on classroom scripture displays no longer applies.
If the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, it does not guarantee a win for the families. The Court could also use the case to officially overturn Stone v. Graham and allow every conservative state legislature to move forward with similar laws. This is the risk the plaintiffs are taking, and it is why this filing is important beyond Texas.
If you can afford to chip in less than $7/month as an annual supporter you can help us increase our coverage of Trump’s illegal and immortal activities and expose his administration. If you don’t have the means to contribute right now, please consider a free subscription so we can reach as many people as possible with our grassroot campaign! We’d love to continue this week off with your support!
Democratic Reporter exists because our readers do not let officials quietly change the Constitution. When a state government chooses a denomination and requires it in every classroom, someone needs to document it, name those responsible, and follow the case to the end. Subscribe and share this article. Accountability only works when enough people are paying attention.